Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Passport
Passport
To,
The Superintendent (Policy),
Regional Passport Office,
Hudco Trikoot-III,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
R. K Puram, New Delhi – 66.
Sir,
Under instructions and on behalf of ‘my client’ Shri. Devashish Garg son of
Shri. Prem Chand Garg resident of A/8, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, East Punjabi
Bagh, New Delhi – 110026, being authorized in this behalf, I hereby put to you
the detailed reply of the above captioned Show Cause Notice (SCN) to be
The contents of the first, second and third paragraph of your above captioned
prescribed by law in this regard and are without any reasoned/rational and
conscionable basis and are thus denied and vehemently opposed in totality.
facts and figures from the office of the DRI before alleging anything
on this count with cogent material and evidence to support and base
the same.
Enclosure-1.
in the year June 2015 after completing his formal education from
(DRI) carried out search operations in the office premises of M/s Shri.
employee.
e. That despite this, the sleuths of DRI illegally seized the passport of my
building from where M/s Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd. runs its corporate office
from.
f. That my client as such is not even remotely connected with the affairs
and the day to day functioning of M/s Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd and the
only link between my client and M/s Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd. is that he is
the fortunate son of the unfortunate promoters of M/s Shri. Lal Mahal
Ltd.
client in W.P (C) 7900/17 and LPA 628/17 and after considering the
same in all material particulars, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
was pleased to direct the DRI to release the Passport of my client vide
g. That for the release of his passport from the custody of the DRI, my
client initially filed a Writ petition bearing W.P (C) 7900/17 before the
h. That by virtue of the said order the DRI onwardly transmitted the
passport of my client to your good office vide its letter dated 27.09.17,
against the said order dated 12.09.2017 passed in W.P (C) 7900/17
before the Division Bench-II of the Delhi High Court vide LPA no.
628/2017. The said LPA was allowed thereby holding that the onward
transmission of the passport from DRI to your good office was illegal
and was bad in law and directions for the release of my client’s
reference as Enclosure-5.
pretext that if the passport is released my client shall fly off from
India. The entire incident was embodied in a letter and was submitted
by the AR of my client in your good office vide diary no. 1606 dated
l. That running from pillar to post with the Hon’ble High Court’s
m. That in response to the said representation, the DRI in turn, vide its
as Enclosure-8.
of his own, was pleased to issue a Show Cause Notice u/s 10 (3) (c) of
reference as Enclosure-9.
vide diary no. 456040 and before the said petition could be listed
before the court, a copy thereof was served to the counsel for the DRI
12.10.2017.
q. The my client thereafter did not pursue the Contempt Petition and did
client.
s. That as per the procedure prescribed under the Passports Act, 1967, in
issued u/s 10(1) of The Passports Act thereby asking the holder of the
as such on this score itself, the SCN under reply is perverse, illegal
NOTE: All these averments are clearly recorded by the High Court in
its order dated 22.09.2017 passed in LPA no. 628/2017 and is as such
v. That at the outset, on a bare perusal of the SCN under reply it can be
safely concluded that the said SCN has been issued by your good
Shri. Lal Mahal Ltd. against which the DRI has contemplated a legal
Page 9 of 10
Interestingly, the SCN is utterly bad even on this score also since
valid Indian Passport and the validity of his passport is nowhere under
In the light of the above discussion and the necessary elaboration of the
and call upon you to immediately withdraw the SCN under reply which, if not
passed against you for acting totally in defiance of the basic provisions of The
Passports Act, 1967 and for your ex-facie unbecoming conduct as a Passport
Page 10 of 10
Officer. The SCN issued by you is blatantly and utterly illegal, perverse,
Last but not the least, it may be pointed out that the SCN under reply
you so as to harass my client for your own vested interests and untoward
court of competent jurisdiction for the above acts of commission and omissions
since the present SCN is based upon a concocted allegation that compliance of
summon(s) issued u/s 108 of Customs Act, 1962 is pending against him
whereas no such compliance is actually pending against him since 21st day of
A copy of your SCN and the present reply stands retained by me for further